1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 11:23 AM

To: Dwight Mallory

Cc: Patrick Flynn; Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: Dinetahdoo CRM Resolute McElmo Flare Report

Hi Dwight,

Just following up on the email below on whether you have any updates. Please call me if you have any questions.

Thanks.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Kelly, Shaheerah  

Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 10:00 AM

To: Dwight Mallory

Cc: Maurin, Lawrence; Rios, Gerardo; Kelly, Shaheerah; Patrick Flynn; Saanii

Subject: RE: Dinetahdoo CRM Resolute McElmo Flare Report

Dwight, 

We received the draft historic properties report submitted by your consultant, Dinetahdoo Cultural Resources 

Management. We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft report, which provides an assessment of the 

historic properties within the area of potential effects (i.e., 2 km of the main flare) for the undertaking. In order 

to make the report complete, we have the following comments and suggestions provided below. 

Once you have addressed our comments, we look forward to reviewing the revised report which we expect will 

be submitted by Resolute Natural Resources Company. EPA must obtain this information to move toward 

conclusion of the NHPA consultation process. This process must be completed before the agency can issue the 

final PSD permit. If you have any questions, please contact Shaheerah Kelly at (415) 947-4156 or 

kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov, or Larry Maurin at (415) 972-3943 or maurin.lawrence@epa.gov. 

Comment #1: 

The report does not describe EPA’s undertaking in the section called “Description of Undertaking” on page 1. 

We recommend that you modify this section such that it includes the following: 

“Resolute Natural Resources, LLC contracted with DCRM to identify historic properties, as defined by

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations, within a 2 km Area of

Potential Effect (APE) of the main flare at the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility (MCU Facility

or Facility). 
2

Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, prior to the 

approval of the expenditure of any funds on or prior to the issuance of any license for an undertaking, 

EPA is required to take into account the effects of its undertakings on historic properties. Consultation 

is required for all undertakings that have the potential to affect historic properties. Section 106 

consultations assess whether historic properties exist within an undertaking’s area of potential effect 

and, if so, whether the undertaking will adversely affect such properties. The term “historic properties” 

means prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects included in, or eligible for 

inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Department of the Interior. 

EPA’s undertaking triggering the application of the NHPA is the issuance of a federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality permit, in accordance with the Clean Air Act and PSD 

regulations (40 CFR 52.21), for the gas flare (called the “main flare”) at the MCU Facility. While the 

Facility is an existing oil and gas production operation located on the McElmo Creek Unit oilfield in 

San Juan County, Utah, our action is only for the gas flare which is used to destroy natural gas during 

any upsets of the natural gas gathering system. The United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Region 9 is the lead federal agency for this undertaking. 

EPA is amending the PSD permit to incorporate pollution limits, terms, and conditions of a federal 

Consent Decree (United States v. Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S. Inc., Case No. 2:05-CV-319, 

filed June 8, 2005) that specifically applies to the main gas flare at the MCU Facility. These pollution 

limits, terms, and conditions include Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emission limitations for 

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds for the main flare at 

the MCU Facility. 

Additionally, EPA is amending the PSD permit to remove and update other applicable requirements in 

the MCU Facility’s PSD permit due to equipment that has been shut down and removed from the site. 

Other than the potential replacement of a fixed speed fan with a variable speed fan to provide better 

pollution control at the already existing main flare, EPA’s action does not authorize any new 

construction or modification of existing equipment at the MCU Facility. 

EPA issued the proposed permit for public comment on October 15, 2014. A final permit decision will 

be issued following completion of the Agency’s Section 106 NHPA consultation. 

DCRM’s identification of historic properties included a literature search to identify previously recorded 

cultural resources to determine if they qualified as historic properties under the NHPA (Figure 1) as 

well as a field assessment of existing Navajo in-use sites within the APE to determine if any of the 

structures are eligible for listing as historic properties (Figure 2).” 

Comment #2: 

The report does not discuss potential effects of the undertaking on historic properties. The undertaking is for the 

issuance of a PSD permit. However, other than the potential replacement of a fixed speed fan with a variable 

speed fan to provide better pollution control at the already existing main flare, EPA’s action does not authorize 

any new construction or modification of existing equipment at the MCU Facility. Additionally, the EPA’s 

action would not result in any ground breaking activities to undisturbed areas. We recommend that you add a 

section to the report that addresses potential effects of the undertaking on historic properties within the 2 km 

APE for the flare, or if there are no effects, indicate that the undertaking will have no effect or will not likely 

effect historic properties within the 2 km APE. 

Comment #3: 
3

In the “Abstract” section on page i and in the “Introduction” section on page 1, we recommend that you replace 

“the continued operation of the McElmo Creek Unit Main Flare” with “the undertaking”. 

Comment #4: 

In the map in Figure 1 on page 2, please clearly identify the location of the flare in the map. 

Comment #5: 

The report identifies thirteen (13) historic structures, and nine (9) in-use sites. For each of these sites, please 

identify which sites or structures are already listed in, or eligible to be listed in, the National Register of Historic 

Places. For sites or structures that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, it would be helpful to 

provide the listing date. 

Comment #6: 

In the “Recommendations” section on page 41 of the report, we find that the first recommendation stating that 

the “USEPA or their contractors should visit the homesites within the 2 km APE to see and analyze the oily 

residue that falls on their property as a result of the burning of excess gas” is not supported by the report. 

EPA’s undertaking concerns the main flare at the site, which is a gas flare. The report does not describe how the 

main flare results in “oily residue.” In fact, there is no discussion of oily residue in any other part of the report 

and how and where such oily residue (if it even exists) is produced. The report does not provide a basis for how 

the gas-fired main flare results in an “oily residue” and whether “oily residue” may be due to sources other than 

the main flare. 

Comment #7 

In the “Recommendations” section on page 41 of the report, recommendation #2, calls for EPA or Resolute to

make arrangements (through a qualified contractor) to conduct a field analysis regarding the current status of

previously documented archaeological sites provided in this report, and what, if any, impacts the gas flare has

had on the previously documented archaeological sites. We are not clear about this recommendation since the

purpose of this report is to provide Resolute with the current status of such sites, and to provide Resolute with upto-date information regarding potential effects on historic properties within the 2 km APE. If the consultant found

no such effects, or is unable to make this determination it should state so in the report. 

On page 42 of the report, recommendation #3, calls for the EPA or Resolute to make arrangements (through a 

qualified contractor) to fully document eight historic structures that were deemed eligible for protection under 

the NHPA, and assess the impacts, if any, of the main flare on these structures. Again, we are perplexed by this 

recommendation because the purpose of this report is to fully document and assess the impacts (if any) on 

historic properties (if any) by the main flare within the 2 km APE. If the consultant found no such effects, or is 

unable to make this determination it should state so in the report. 

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Saanii [mailto:dinetahdoo@yahoo.com]  

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 2:42 PM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: Dinetahdoo CRM Resolute McElmo Flare Report
4

Good afternoon Ms. Kelly, 

Attached to this message is a copy of Dinetahdoo CRM's report regarding the listing of 

previously identified archaeological resources and historic Navajo structures in the 

vicinity of the McElmo Unit Main Flare which is operated by Resolute Natural Resources 

in Aneth, Utah. The report has been reviewed by Mr. Dwight Mallory of Resolute and we 

believe that the report is ready for submission to your office and the Navajo Nation 

Historic Preservation Department (NNHPD). The copies that will be sent to NNHPD will 

include a confidential ethnographical appendix as well as site forms for the majority of 

the archaeological sites described in the report. We would like to know if there is 

anything you would like from us as well? Please do not hesitate to contact us should 

there be any questions regarding the report. Thank you and have a great day. 

Jeremy Begay 

Senior Archaeologist 

Dinetahdoo Cultural Resources Management, LLC 

P.O. Box 2012, Farmington NM 87499 

10076 US Hwy 371, S of Farmington, NM 

Phone (505) 960-9478Fax (505) 960-9749 

Email dinetahdoo@yahoo.com 

Website: www.dinetahdoo.com